法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 公務人員福利事項權屬與法制化研究-從刪減年終慰問金談起(A Study of the Jurisdiction & Legalization of Civil Service Welfare-The Issue of "Cutting Year-end Consolation Money")
編著譯者: 馮惠平
出版日期: 2013.01
刊登出處: 台灣/文官制度季刊第 5 卷 第 1 期 /1-20 頁
頁  數: 13 點閱次數: 1097
下載點數: 52 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 馮惠平
關 鍵 詞: 法制化法律保留原則年終慰問金公務人員福利事項再授權禁止原則
中文摘要: 早期公務人員待遇微薄,政府為安定公務人員生活,使其於發生各種急難事故時,能獲得適當之濟助,特採行各種福利措施,以補平時俸給之不足。嗣政府逐步調高公務人員待遇,自民國 80 年代以後,公務人員待遇與民間待遇差距逐漸縮小彌平。近年來,全球經濟不景氣,國內經濟隨之低迷不振,基層勞工薪資不升反降,造成一般民眾相對剝奪感加增。面對此一「不患寡而患不均」之大環境氛圍,行政院近期在立法部門強烈壓力下,作出大幅刪減退休公務人員年終慰問金之決策,由此,衍生出許多公法上值得探討的問題。本文欲藉由文獻研究及立法學研究等方法,探討公務人員福利事項之分工權屬、項目及適用法令、有否法律保留原則適用等,並提出相關檢討及修法建議,以期作為有關機關政策決定的參考。
英文關鍵詞: legalizationthe principle of legal reservationthe year-end consolation moneycivil Service welfarethe principle of prohibiting re-authorization
英文摘要: This paper tries to explain why and how the consolation money policy, related rules and measures were made, and whether the Principle of Law Reservation can be applied to this policy. The author also tries to look at the issue from legislative points of view in a hope to provide a consolidated legal suggestion for the reference of the government in policy making. The consolation money was originally designed as a measure to support civil servants’ livelihood because their average salary was rather low as compared to other private-sector workers before 1990’s, and this gap was gradually narrowed after the government started to raise the average salary for civil servants since the 1990s. However, this measure for civil servants can no longer be sustained because most of our workers (especially lower-level ones) are facing the fact that their salaries have been shrinking under the threat from the global economic downturn, pushing the government to cut some welfare for civil servants and forcing them to share the economic pain. To deal with this problem, the Executive Yuan has decided to cut the 2012 year-end consolation money for retired civil servants under the pressure from the Legislative Yuan, a move that created a big controversy especially over public law.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、兩院權責分工重疊,應予釐清
參、項目及適用範圍不明確,缺乏統一規定
肆、提昇法制位階,俾適用法律保留原則
伍、相關檢討建議
陸、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列